DOCSLIB.ORG

Beginning Reading, Reading Recovery Appendix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beginning Reading, Reading Recovery Appendix Appendix Appendix A1.1 Study Characteristics: Baenen, Bernhold, Dulaney, and Banks, 1997 (randomized controlled trial) Characteristic Description Study citation Baenen, N., Bernhold, A., Dulaney, C., & Bankes, K. (1997). Reading Recovery: Long-term progress after three cohorts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2(2), 161. Participants The study involved 772 first-grade students who were studied in four cohorts between 1990 and 1994. Of this total number, only one cohort (that received treatment in 1990–91 at 10 schools1) with 168 students meets WWC criteria for inclusion. After 1990–91, the comparison group was made up of students who were not comparable to the intervention group in terms of their achievement levels—they were not the lowest-achieving students in participating schools, as the Reading Recovery® students were. Due to attrition, the authors’ final analysis sample included 147 first-grade students in the 1990–91 cohort.2 All 147 students were followed longitudinally into second grade; 127 of these students were followed and included in the third-grade analysis. No information was reported regarding ethnicity or gender, but all students were low achieving, and a high percentage of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch (N. Baenen, personal communication, January 9, 2006). Setting The study took place in 10 elementary schools in Wake County public schools in North Carolina. Intervention The intervention group was originally composed of 84 students who qualified forReading Recovery® on the basis of three subtests from the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement—Text Reading Level (running record), Dictation, and Writing Vocabulary. Intervention students, among the lowest-achieving students at their schools, were randomly assigned to receive the Reading Recovery® intervention. They were taught by one of 12 teachers. Results were presented for 72 students for first- and second-grade analyses. Of these, 27% of the students received a “partial program” instead of the full set of more than 60 lessons in Reading Recovery®. Comparison The comparison group was composed of 84 students who qualified forReading Recovery® on the basis of three subtests from the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement—Text Reading Level (running record), Dictation, and Writing Vocabulary. These students, among the lowest-achieving students at their schools, were randomly assigned to a wait list for Reading Recovery® intervention. They did not receive Reading Recovery® during the time of the study but received the regular services available to them. Results were presented for 75 students for first- and second-grade analyses and 68 students for third-grade analysis. Primary outcomes Grade retention was measured at the end of first and second grade, and the North Carolina End-of-Grade test in reading was used at the end of third grade. The authors also and measurement measured referral to special education and Title I services and teacher perception of student achievement, but these outcomes are not included in this report because they are not specified by the WWC Beginning Reading Protocol. The authors used three subtests of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, but these measures are not included in the review because collection of these data did not focus on the full sample of students. For a more detailed description of the outcome measures, see Appendix A2.4. Staff/teacher training Reading Recovery® teachers participated in a graduate-level course that included 33 training sessions from September to June of the intervention year. The 1990–91 school year was the first year of implementingReading Recovery® for the district; therefore, it was the first year the teachers taught the intervention. 1. One of the manuscripts related to this study reported 11 schools. 2. Pretest comparability of the students was demonstrated for only 146 students. It is reasonable to assume that the pretest mean for the 146 students would be similar to that based on 147 students. WWC Intervention Report Reading Recovery® December 2008 16 Appendix A1.2 Study Characteristics: Pinnell, DeFord, and Lyons, 1988 (randomized controlled trial) Characteristic Description Study citation Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E., & Lyons, C. A. (1988). Reading Recovery: Early intervention for at-risk first graders (Educational Research Service Monograph). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Participants The study involved 187 first-grade students from 14 schools. Although information about the specific schools included in the study was not presented, the district has a racial composition of 45% nonwhite students and a gender composition of 51% male students. The city has a mobility rate of approximately 20%, and 66% of students receive free or reduced-price lunch. Students in the study were low achieving, as defined by scoring in the lowest 20% of their class on reading measures. Due to attrition, results were reported for 184 students. Setting The study took place in 14 urban public schools in Columbus, Ohio. Intervention There were two intervention groups with a total of 134 students taught by 32 teachers. One group was randomly assigned to receive the standard Reading Recovery® pull-out program (n = 38). These students had regular classroom teachers who were not trained in Reading Recovery®. This group experienced attrition of one student. A second group of students determined to be eligible for Reading Recovery® received the standard Reading Recovery® pull-out program, with the addition of having regular classroom teachers trained in Reading Recovery® (n = 96). The second group was not randomly assigned to Reading Recovery® or to their classroom teacher, so this portion of the study is considered a quasi-experimental design. It is not included in the intervention rating because the second intervention group with a Reading Recovery®–trained teacher as its regular classroom teacher goes beyond the standard implementation of the program.1 Comparison The comparison group was composed of low-achieving students who did not have regular classroom teachers trained in Reading Recovery® and who were randomly assigned to an alternative compensatory program (n = 53) (G. S. Pinnell, personal communication, September 9, 2006). Students in this group received a series of skill-oriented drill activities conducted in small groups or individual sessions of 30–45 minutes from a trained paraprofessional. The comparison group was not statistically different from either intervention group on pretest measures (G. S. Pinnell, personal communication, December 5, 2005). The final analysis sample included 51 students. Primary outcomes Five subtests of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement were included—Letter Identification, Word Recognition, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, and and measurement Dictation. Additional measures included a writing assessment, the Reading Vocabulary subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), and the Reading Comprehen- sion subtest of the CTBS. Results from the Observation Survey: Text Reading Level subtest were not reported because effect sizes that were comparable to other measures could not be calculated.2 For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.4. Staff/teacher training Teachers received a full year of special training, during which they practiced teaching and observed other teachers through a one-way mirror. Twelve teachers received training from a university program and were in their second year of teaching the intervention during the time of the study. The other 20 teachers received training from a local teacher leader and were in their first year of teaching the intervention during the time of the study. 1. Results are reported in Appendices A4.1–4.3 2. Findings based on the Observation Survey: Text Reading Level subtest are not included in the effectiveness ratings because effect sizes and the statistical significance of the findings could not be calculated given the information provided in the study. The Observation Survey: Text Reading Level subtest is reported as reading levels based on ordinal, rather than equal-interval, scales. For example, the increase in fluency measured by scoring at level 3 compared with level 2 on the scale may not be equal to the increase in fluency as measured by scoring at level 24 compared with level 23. The author no longer had information on the number of students scoring at each level. For more detail, see Denton, C.A., Ciancio, D. J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2006). Validity, reliability, and utility of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1) 8–34. WWC Intervention Report Reading Recovery® December 2008 17 Appendix A1.3 Study Characteristics: Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer, 1994 (randomized controlled trial) Characteristic Description Study citation Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders.Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 8–39. Participants The study was designed to examine outcomes of 403 first-grade students distributed across 43 schools. Percentages of children receiving Aid to Dependent Children ranged between 9% and 42% among districts. For this report, the WWC looked at results for students in 10 districts at schools that were using Reading Recovery®. In those schools, eligible students were randomly assigned
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Literacy Plan Read Well by Third Grade
    April 2018 Bemidji Area Schools Local Literacy Plan Read Well by Third Grade Bemidji School District #0031-01 502 Minnesota Ave. NW Bemidji, MN 56601 Ph. 218-333-3100 Literacy Goals and Needs Assessment Kindergarten Goals: 1. Kindergarten students will improve their overall Mean RIT score from 140.3 in Fall 2017 to 158.1 in Spring 2018 as measured by NWEA MAP. 2. By May of 2018, 75 % of kindergarten students will correctly read at least 80 % of the words on the Kindergarten Sight Word Checklist (Houghton Mifflin high-frequency words) within 3 seconds when presented in isolation. Kindergarten Data 1. Letter Sound Fluency: In 2016–2017, the following percentages of kindergarten students met the AIMSweb benchmark target (Tier 1). Scores significantly discrepant (below 60% at Tier I) from the norm are shown in red: Student Group Fall 2016 Winter 2017 Spring 2017 All Students 57.0% 59.0% 64.0% American Indian Students 40.4% 45.4% 53.1% White Students 60.7% 62.4% 66.5% Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch 47.0% 49.0% 53.0% Students Not Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch 62.6% 66.1% 71.3% Special Education Students 59.2% 62.0% 55.5% General Education Students 56.3% 58.6% 64.6% ● If the curriculum and core instruction are effective, at least 80% of students should be meeting the target. Data over the past three years indicates that students are not achieving at expected levels in letter sound fluency. 2. 2017-2018 MAP Reading RIT Scores: The table below indicates the average MAP RIT Scores for Fall, Winter, and Spring 2017-2018 for all kindergarteners.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Writing: an Exploration of Literacy Opportunities Billie J
    Early Writing Opportunities Early Writing: An Exploration of Literacy Opportunities Billie J. Askew, Texas Woman’s University Dianne Frasier, Harris County Department of Education and Texas Woman’s University Abstract Early writing experiences provide children with instances in which they may learn the processes and concepts involved in getting meaning- ful messages into print. This study examined the opportunities low- progress first-grade children had in learning to use strategies while writ- ing a brief message in daily interaction with a Reading Recovery teacher. Specifically, three strategies for writing words were investigat- ed: (a) writing known words, (b) analyzing new words by hearing and recording sounds in words, and (c) analyzing new words through analo- gy with known words. Eighty-two Reading Recovery children from eight states were the subjects for this study. Data were collected from the children’s writing books, writing vocabulary charts, records of text reading, and the teachers’daily lesson records. Analyses demonstrated that low-progress children acquire a considerable amount of knowledge about words, about letters/letter clusters and their sounds, and about the orthography of the language in a relatively short period of time. Limitations and implications of this study are discussed. Writing involves a complex series of actions. Children have to think of a message and hold it in the mind. Then they have to think of the first word and how to start it, remember each letter form and its features, and manually reproduce the word letter by letter. Having written that first word (or an approximation), the child must go back to the whole message, retrieve it, and think of the next word.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Reading Recovery® Response to Cook, Rodes, & Lipsitz (2017) from the Reading Recovery Council of North America
    The Truth About Reading Recovery® Response to Cook, Rodes, & Lipsitz (2017) from the Reading Recovery Council of North America In an article appearing in Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, authors Cook, Rodes, and Lipsitz (2017) make multiple misleading, misguided, and blatantly false claims about Reading Recovery® in yet another attack to discredit the most widely researched early reading intervention in the world. When you’re recognized as a leader with proven success, you often become the target for those with limited knowledge who apply broad strokes and twist the truth to fit their own perceptions of reality. The unfortunate reality, in this case, is that this article, “The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know,” is an affront to researchers, scholars, educators, and others who know the facts and a disservice to parents of children with reading difficulties. The authors claim to provide information necessary to make evidence-based decisions in support of struggling beginning readers. Like evidence-based medicine, these decisions can have a critical impact on children’s lives. As in the medical context, objective professionals can differ in their interpretations of the available evidence. The authors’ perspective is far from objective. They invoke the “reading wars” in their title and advocate for their ideological perspective in their biased, selective, and fallacy-full analysis of Reading Recovery and the research related to this early intervention approach. Dr. Timothy Shanahan, past president of the International Reading Association (now International Literacy Association) and a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago, noted the effectiveness of Reading Recovery in a recent article examining the importance of replicability in reading research.
    [Show full text]
  • How and Why Children Learn About Sounds, Letters, and Words in Reading Recovery Lessons
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 437 616 CS 013 828 AUTHOR Fountas, Irene C.; Pinnell, Gay Su TITLE How and Why Children Learn about Sounds, Letters, and Words in Reading Recovery Lessons. INSTITUTION Reading Recovery Council of North America, Columbus, OH. PUB DATE 1999-00-00 NOTE 12p. PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Teacher (052) Journal Articles (080) Reports Research (143) JOURNAL CIT Running Record; v12 n1 p1-6,10-11,13-14 Fall 1999 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Beginning Reading; Classroom Research; *Classroom Techniques; Learning Activities; *Learning Processes; *Literacy; Primary Education; Word Recognition IDENTIFIERS Lesson Structure; *Orthography; Phonological Awareness; *Reading Recovery Projects; Word Learning ABSTRACT This article takes a look at Reading Recovery lesson elements to compare the teaching and learning within the lesson components to several areas of learning that have been identified at the national level as important to children's literacy learning. The lesson elements examined in the article are: (1) phonological awareness; (2) orthographic awareness; and (3) word learning in reading and writing. The article states that the first two areas of knowledge, and the way they are interrelated, contribute to young children's growth in the ability to solve words while reading for meaning, while the third area strongly supports learning in the first two areas and also helps to accelerate early learning in literacy. These elements together contribute to the child's development of a larger process in which the reader uses "in-the-head" strategies in an efficient way to access and orchestrate a variety of information, including meaning and language systems, with the visual and phonological information in print.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonemic Awareness and Phonics in Reading Recovery
    Phonemic awareness and phonics in Reading Recovery It is not uncommon for beginning readers to exhibit challenges in the areas of phonemic awareness and/or phonics. Reading Recovery, based on Dr. Marie Clay’s literacy processing theory, incorporates teaching phonemic and orthographic relationships in every individually designed daily lesson. Phonemic awareness is defined as the ability to notice, think about, and work with the individual sounds in spoken words. Reading Recovery does Phonics instruction teaches children the relationships between the letters (graphemes) of written language and the individual not follow a pre-packaged, sounds (phonemes) of spoken language. scripted, one-size-fits-all approach to literacy learning. Phonemic awareness and phonics are explicitly taught throughout each Instead, as with all daily Reading Recovery lesson within the context of reading and writing components of the Reading continuous, authentic text and only in isolation when necessary. In addition, the writing part of the lesson and initial and ongoing assessments Recovery lesson, phonemic used in Reading Recovery devote special attention to these two critical awareness and phonics components of reading instruction. instruction are systematic in nature and based on close Phonics and phonemic awareness support the decoding component of observation by the skilled the reading and writing processes. While it is necessary to value decoding skills as an important piece of literacy learning, it is equally important to teacher and the strengths and understand that the terms decoding and reading are not synonymous. needs of the child. Decoding in isolation leaves out the critical component of comprehending the meaning in text. Standardized assessment and individualized daily lessons An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2016) provides a standardized, systematic way of capturing early reading and writing behaviors and is the primary assessment tool used in Reading Recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Literate Potential in Literature-Based and Skills-Based Classrooms Zhihui Fang, University of Florida
    The Development of Literate Potential The Development of Literate Potential in Literature-Based and Skills-Based Classrooms Zhihui Fang, University of Florida Abstract This study examined young children’s developing understand- ing of written discourse in two instructional settings: literature-based and skills-based. Forty-one first graders were each requested to dictate two “written” stories for others to read at the beginning and end of the school year. The 82 texts were analyzed for their cohesive harmony, conformity to the socioculturally-codified genre conventions, and use of specific written language features. Quantitative analysis revealed statistically sig- nificant increases in cohesion and genre scores, but only marginal gains in the written language features measures. Further, the development of such written discourse knowledge was not significantly impacted by the instructional context. Qualitative analysis revealed that the children’s texts demonstrated impressive advances in the written mode of organiz- ing and communicating information to others, despite evidence of traces of oral discourse patterns and immature control over diverse genres. These findings are discussed in light of relevant literacy research and practice. Literacy is not a natural outgrowth from orality. Becoming literate in our soci- ety requires that children learn to take control over the written mode of communi- cation. In order to do this, they must come to terms with certain features of written discourse: its sustained organization, its characteristic rhythms and structures, its distinctive grammar, and its disembedded quality (Kress, 1994; Olson & Torrance, 1981; Wood, 1998). While home and community are important to the development of a literate mind, it is the school that is commonly considered the most important site for children’s literacy development.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Recovery and Common Core State Standards Are Closely Interconnected Within Each Lesson
    Reading Recovery can play a vital role in ensuring that students are able to meet the goals of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (the Standards). Because the Standards were created to help ensure that all students are college and career ready in literacy by the end of high school, early literacy intervention must be available for first graders who are already struggling with literacy learning. Early intervention has the potential to prevent literacy difficulties for many students, including English language learners, by quickly catching them up with their peers by the end of Grade 1, and thus providing the opportunity to benefit from instruction at every subsequent grade level. Reading Recovery is a research- and evidence-based intervention that brings 75% of the students with a Reading Recovery full intervention to the average performance of their and Common Core grade level.1 A review by the USDE’s What Works Clearinghouse provided high ratings for the intervention State Standards across four domains central to the Common Core State Standards: alphabetics, fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement.2 Standards in the early grades provide foundational support for the College and Career Readiness Standards. While Background the Standards “do not define the intervention methods Across the U.S., most states are adopting the Common or materials necessary to support students who are well Core State Standards so that teachers and parents have a below or well above grade-level expectations” (page 6), this common understanding of what students are expected to learn regardless of where they live.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Recovery Works!
    READING RECOVERY WORKS! • Exceeds ESSA’s strong evidence standard Reading Recovery is a thoroughly researched with demonstrated scale-up success and proven early literacy intervention for the lowest-achieving first graders. Individual students work • Produces measurable results in weeks, not years one-to-one with a specially trained teacher for only 12 to 20 weeks and receive daily 30-minute lessons. • Accelerates the lowest readers with After a full series of lessons, about 72% of students proven results achieve grade-level standard. • Supplements good classroom teaching as part of a comprehensive literacy plan Reading Recovery received the highest possible rating for general reading achievement of all beginning reading • Benefits the whole school with programs reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse. specially trained literacy experts The Reading Recovery network provides the support • Informs instruction and provides necessary to produce these gains with your students. documentation of positive outcomes Recently, a federally funded independent evaluation found large gains for the lowest-performing students, • Reduces or closes achievement gaps across varying racial, ethnic, and as 3,675 teachers were trained in 1,321 schools across socioeconomic groups a 5-year scale-up grant. FIND OUT HOW READING RECOVERY CAN WORK FOR YOU AT ReadingRecoveryWorks.org Reading Recovery helps struggling beginning readers and writers in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Reconstructions for children learning to read in Spanish (Descubriendo la Lectura) and French (Intervention Préventive en Lecture-Écriture) achieve similar results. ACCOUNTABLE The intervention requires ongoing data collection for each and every child who has lessons. In the U.S., evaluation is conducted by the International Data Evaluation Center (IDEC) located at The Ohio State University.
    [Show full text]
  • STRENGTHENING READING COMPREHENSION for STUDENTS with ASD by Kari L. Johnson B
    READING COMPREHENSION THINKING BEYOND THE WORDS: STRENGTHENING READING COMPREHENSION FOR STUDENTS WITH ASD by Kari L. Johnson B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1997 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION IN SPECIAL EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA October 2019 © Kari L. Johnson, 2019 READING COMPREHENSION ii Abstract The purpose of this project is to provide a handbook for classroom and special education teachers. This handbook is to assist teachers helping their students with ASD to develop reading comprehension skills. This project begins with background information regarding ASD and prevalence rates for ASD along with a discussion about reading comprehension. A literature review outlines the difficulties students with ASD have with reading comprehension and examines the specific areas with which students struggle. An outline of how the project is structured is given and finally a handbook is presented that outlines strategies for teachers to use for each area of deficit which students may encounter. The handbook provides a variety of strategies for each area identified. READING COMPREHENSION iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract................................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents................................................................................................................iii List of Tables.......................................................................................................................v
    [Show full text]
  • ED440367.Pdf
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 440 367 CS 013 947 AUTHOR Pinnell, Gay Su TITLE Reading Recovery: An Analysis of a Research-Based Reading Intervention. INSTITUTION Reading Recovery Council of North America, Columbus, OH. PUB DATE 2000-00-00 NOTE 75p. AVAILABLE FROM Reading Recovery Council of North America, Inc., 1929 Kenny Road, Suite 100, Columbus, OH 43210-1069. Tel: 614-292-7111. Web site: http://www.readingrecovery.org. PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Beginning Reading; Early Intervention; *Literacy; Primary Education; Reading Difficulties; *Reading Inst2uction; Reading Programs; Reading Research IDENTIFIERS National Institute Child Health Human Development; *Reading Recovery Projects ABSTRACT National attention is focused on early literacy, as several panels investigate and debate new directions in teaching children to read and write. This booklet reviews selected research recommended by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development as a sound basis for designing literacy programs and particular intervention programs to help struggling readers. The booklet discusses how Reading Recovery epitomizes the 10 principles in literacy programs that work and states that the power of Reading Recovery lies in the inteuration of the 10 research-based components and the careful, sensitive application of these components during a Reading Recovery lesson. It presents a chart which summarizes these 10 principles that this research suggests are essential for intervention programs and lists supporting research, as well as components and teaching procedures characteristic of Reading Recovery, for each of the 10 principles. Contains 2 tables and 89 references. .(NKA) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Oral Language Within Reading Recovery Sarah Adkins
    Investigating Oral Language within Reading Recovery Sarah Adkins, B. S. E. Otterbein University March 4, 2016 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Masters of Arts in Education degree. Dr. Susan Constable _____________________________ __________________ Advisor Signature Date Dr. Dee Knoblauch _____________________________ __________________ Second Reader Signature Date Dr. Clare Kilbane _____________________________ __________________ Third Reader Signature Date Copyright By Sarah M. Adkins 2016 VITA Teaching Experience 2010-Present Reading Support, Reading Recovery, Kindergarten Teacher Daniel Wright Elementary Dublin City Schools Columbus, Ohio Education 2009 Bachelor of Science in Education Early Childhood Education Reading Otterbein College Westerville, Ohio ii TABLE OF CONTENTS VITA TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ABSTRACT SECTION ONE Introduction……………………………………………………………………..1 SECTION TWO Review of the Literature………………………………………………………..3 SECTION THREE Methodology………………………………..……………………………………..18 Procedure, Research Design and Data Collection……………….………………..18 Materials…………………………………….…………………………………….19 Data Analysis………………………..……………………………………………21 Validity………………………………………………………………….………..22 SECTION FOUR Results………………………………………………………………………........23 SECTION FIVE Discussion………………………………………………………………………..31 Limitations…………………………………………………………...……….….34 Implications for Practice…………………………………………………………34 iii LIST OF REFERENCES………………………………………………………………...36 APPENDICES Appendix A. Record of Oral Language Assessment……..……………………...39
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Educational Games on Sight Word Reading Achievement and Student Motivation
    Journal of Language and Literacy Education Vol. 13 Issue 2—Fall 2017 Effects of Educational Games on Sight Word Reading Achievement and Student Motivation Justine M. Gibbon, Stacy Duffield, Jeanette Hoffman, & Justin J. Wageman Abstract: Nine first-grade children at risk for reading failure were selected to participate in remedial reading interventions. These first-grade students scored below benchmark target and grade level expectancies on measures of early reading skills, including AIMSweb Nonsense Word Fluency and Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA MAP ) for Primary Reading, or received a teacher referral based on oral reading fluency scores. Interventions occurred four times a week for 11 weeks, and included 10 minutes of direct phonemic awareness instruction and& 10 minutes of sight word games. Data were collected on students’ oral reading fluency, sight word identification, and motivation to read. Students were found to be more engaged and voiced a preference for sight word card and board games over the tablet apps. Results indicated that games as interventions can accelerate sight word learning and are highly effective for sight word achievement in first-grade students when combined with direct instruction on phonemic awareness. The participants improved at a rate double that of previously studied, remedial first-grade students. Results also indicated that intervention games in remedial reading programs have a direct impact on student engagement, but not necessarily on a student’s self-concept as a reader. Keywords: at risk, beginning reader, sight words, sight word games, motivation Justine M. Gibbon is a Title 1 Reading Teacher at Kindred, North Dakota.
    [Show full text]